REACH is the
new regulation on chemicals that is destined to create a surge of circa
4 million extra animals used in tests in the EU. Today Animal
Defenders International (ADI) releases a hard-hitting report with
evidence to show why the acute toxicity tests in the REACH proposal
should adopt a non-animal approach.

Earlier this year, ADI put its non-animal testing strategy for REACH to
the European Commission, the Parliament, and the Council of Ministers
(via the UK Government).

GREEN MEP Caroline Lucas has campaigned for non-animal tests to be
incorporated within the REACH Chemicals Regulation, rather than animal
tests.

"Replacing animal experiments with modern non-animal alternatives is
not simply an animal rights issue - it will improve the effectiveness
of toxicity testing and benefit the protection of human health and the
environment," said Dr Lucas, who has tabled 20 amendments to toxicity
tests in the proposed REACH directive, which will be debated at the
Environment Committee.

"Existing animal tests have never been validated to modern standards
and, as well as being extremely cruel, are slower and more expensive
than non-animal alternatives," she added.

One important issue that has been debated this week in the other
committees talking about REACH, is the addition of yet another animal
test requirement, for acute toxicity.

To argue the case for a non-animal alternative, ADI has produced
another report called KEEP ANIMALS OUT OF REACH: Acute Toxicity
Testing. This focuses on an acute toxicity test on rats that was
conducted by Inveresk laboratories on behalf of Hempel's Marine
Paints A/S, Denmark. In this test, for the toxic effects of
anti-fouling paint for use on the bottom of boats, rats were forced to
inhale the paint in an experiment which caused them substantial and
prolonged suffering.

ADI's latest report points out:
· such tests should not have been allowed to continue
· that the REACH regulations will have to be enforced, which
stipulate that - if ingredients are already tested or already known to
be toxic are present in a product like this paint - then animal tests
should not proceed
· the test does not deliver the required human or environmental
safety information required
· a superior non-animal strategy should be used